NGPOD Global Ltd v Aspirate N Go Ltd

NGPOD Global Ltd v Aspirate N Go Ltd

The complexity and scope of the non-patent law issues, the number of witnesses, the need for properly policed disclosure, and the commercial significance of the patents make the case more properly determined by the High Court rather than the IPO Comptroller. The hearing officer failed to appreciate the complexity and significance of the issues, resulting in an error of approach.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: NGPOD Global Limited; Defendant/appellant: Aspirate N Go Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Patent Entitlement, Jurisdiction, Complexity of Proceedings, Non Patent Law Issues
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Entitlement Jurisdiction Complexity of Proceedings Non Patent Law Issues

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NGPOD Global Limited

Claimant/respondent

Aspirate N Go Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the IPO Comptroller should decline jurisdiction in favour of the High Court under section 37(8) of the Patents Act 1977 due to complexity and non-patent law issues
  2. 2 Whether the hearing officer properly evaluated the importance, complexity, and legal issues in dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The complexity and scope of the non-patent law issues, the number of witnesses, the need for properly policed disclosure, and the commercial significance of the patents make the case more properly determined by the High Court rather than the IPO Comptroller. The hearing officer failed to appreciate the complexity and significance of the issues, resulting in an error of approach.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Comptroller should decline to deal with the case; it is more properly determined by the court.